2011 (3) TMI 1138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....K.Dutta, Consultant for the Respondent (s) Per Shri M. Veeraiyan. 1. This is an Appeal by the Department against the order of Commissioner(Appeals) No. 11/HAL/2007 dated 22.02.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The Respondent in their refinery is refining crude and sulphur is, according to the Respondents one of the by-products and the same is exempted. Original authority held that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e duty. He also submits that the order of the original authority is for recovery of amount @8%/10% on the price of the sulphur sold by the Respondent though inadvertently it was mentioned as arising out of denial of CENVAT credit. He also fairly concedes that the original authority has not specified the names of inputs and the stage at which the said inputs are introduced in the integrated manufac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....redit and does not refer to recovery of amount on the value of sulphur sold. Further we find that Commissioner has allowed the Appeal inter alia on the grounds that the order of the original authority does not indicate the inputs. He also accepted the contention of the Respondents that the activities undertaken at the refinery are not an integrated process. He has also held that sulphur recovery p....